Is there ANY solid creation evidence?

[Nathan Poe]

Well then -- here is what God has to say on that point:

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psalm 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

That doesn't sound to me like He thinks they don't carry any weight.

Imagine how meaningful it would've been if God had actually said any of that!

 

[AV1611VET]

Imagine how meaningful it would've been if God had actually said any of that!

I don't have to imagine it, I've got several results of that promise on my bookshelf.

And if you're a literature professor, like you say you are -- (and I believe you) -- I'm sure you've taught Its beauty in the literary genre as well.

 

[Phred]

I don't have to imagine it, I've got several results of that promise on my bookshelf.

I'm sure you do. Doesn't mean any of them are true.

And if you're a literature professor, like you say you are -- (and I believe you) -- I'm sure you've taught Its beauty in the literary genre as well.

Oh you're right. The Bible is beautiful.

18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

21:22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Such... beauty...

 

[Nathan Poe]

I don't have to imagine it, I've got several results of that promise on my bookshelf.

Ah, but only one is the real McCoy, right? the ones that don't bear the "KJV 1611" stamp aren't pure, now are they?

And if you're a literature professor, like you say you are -- (and I believe you) -- I'm sure you've taught Its beauty in the literary genre as well.

Are we talking beauty, or purity? Kindly keep the goalposts in one spot.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, but only one is the real McCoy, right? the ones that don't bear the "KJV 1611" stamp aren't pure, now are they?

Unless they are under the umbrella of God's providence, no.

If you could just get around that mental block called 'evolution' long enough to see that everything isn't a mutant-copy of its predecessor, you just might be able to see that.

Are we talking beauty, or purity? Kindly keep the goalposts in one spot.

Where I'm going, beauty and purity are nearly synonymous.

 

[juvenissun]

"Good" is subjective. IMO, Professor Tolkien's creation myth is much better than Genesis. *shrug*

In this case, the good is absolute.

Try, what would you create first if you are in charge of doing it from the beginning? If you don't create "the heavens and the earth", how would you do in different?

 

[JakeA]

I don't mean the typical YEC approach of "The Bible said it, the Bible is the word of God, so the Bible is right" (even though the use of the Bible as a defense of something as dishonest as YEC is near blasphemy). Nor do I mean taking something about the ToE that we don't fully understand yet and God of the Gaps-ing it. And not something that just shows you have a misconception of evolution (i.e. giving examples of crabs or whatever that haven't evolved for millions of years).

I'm curious and would like to hear evidence for YEc.

In a word, no, you just have to believe in it instead of all the contrary evidence.

If there were evidence you wouldn't need faith.

 

[JakeA]

In this case, the good is absolute.

Try, what would you create first if you are in charge of doing it from the beginning? If you don't create "the heavens and the earth", how would you do in different?

Well i wouldn't create light on the first day and the source on the fourth, that is for sure.

 

[JakeA]

Where I'm going, beauty and purity are nearly synonymous.

Ahhh, pure oak coffin, it's beautiful.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Unless they are under the umbrella of God's providence, no.

God has an umbrella? You shouldn't keep those books indoors, then -- bad luck opening an umbrella in the house.

If you could just get around that mental block called 'evolution' long enough to see that everything isn't a mutant-copy of its predecessor, you just might be able to see that.

And then I could see this magical world where God micromanages the universe ad infinitum to preserve words that floated down on a silver plate, while leaving the rest of creation to rot?

If evolution is keeping me from finding your ideas as brilliant as you do, I'd say it's doing me a great service.

Where I'm going, beauty and purity are nearly synonymous.

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.' --John Keats.

You plan on going on a Grecian Urn?

 

[wensdee]

Well i wouldn't create light on the first day and the source on the fourth, that is for sure.

You would if you didn't know what you were doing, which is true of the people who wrote it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You plan on going on a Grecian Urn?

Oak coffin -- 90

(Assuming I live long enough to die.)

 

[Nathan Poe]

Oak coffin -- 90

"May your coffin be fashioned from a 100-year old oak tree -- and may they plant that tree tomorrow." -- Irish blessing.

(Assuming I live long enough to die.)

I wouldn't worry too much about that.

 

[Split Rock]

Unless they are under the umbrella of God's providence, no.

If you could just get around that mental block called 'evolution' long enough to see that everything isn't a mutant-copy of its predecessor, you just might be able to see that.

Do you have any theological reason to believe that the KJV1611 is under "the umbrella of God's providence" (at least anymore so than any other version), or is it juts a matter of convenience that you believe so?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do you have any theological reason to believe that the KJV1611 is under "the umbrella of God's providence" (at least anymore so than any other version), or is it juts a matter of convenience that you believe so?

Which of AV's stated beliefs aren't matters of convenience?

 

[Greg1234]

In a thread that asks, "is there ANY solid creation evidence?" you want me to once again provide evidence that "chance" and "necessity" create man.

These have already been given. Intelligent design shows that there are irreducibly complex structures. This is an outgrowth from the integrated complexity of living systems and a characteristic of design reaffirming the implementation of intelligence. Secondarily, it is also evidence against Darwinism. Tests show that chance and necessity is inadequate when it comes to the assembly of living systems. The relegation of purely naturalistic processes as the factors responsible for the creation of living systems is a testament to the requirement of an intelligent force in the assembly of living systems providing evidence for intelligent design. It also happens to be evidence against Darwinism. The limitations experienced in the adaptation of living systems shows that a mere continuance from a single organism is not enough and an independent outside force is required to build living systems. This also fits the prediction of intelligence and design. But it just so happens be evidence against Darwinism.

Man... like all other creatures on the earth evolved to become what he is. Randomness played a part, yes. I have no idea what you mean by "necessity" so I can't offer you any evidence there at all.

What do you consider "evidence"?

For the evidence to not have been against Darwinian evolution. These were already given.

 

[Mikecpking]

Mike, let me let you in on a little secret here.

In the beginning, God had 40+ put His eternal words down on "paper".

These were called the 'autographs' -- written in the handwriting of the men who wrote them.

Over time, these writings dried up and blew away due to age -- but before they did, they were meticulously recopied into a 2nd-generation and 3rd and 4th sets of writings called 'originals'.

Now -- in the meantime -- Satan is also busy plagiarizing God's words, and his set of secretaries also copy the autographs down into their own set of books.

Over time, those who were well-versed in the True Writings wouldn't touch the plagiarized writings, and so they were never really put into circulation.

These writings are what scholars today are finding and calling 'the originals'.

They are available to be found, because they were never used by true believers.

So what did the translators use in the time of King James?

Honestly AV, this is a ridiculous argument or even should I say, a strawman to disprove what the bible teaches about 'nephesh'.

 

[Phred]

Intelligent design shows that there are irreducibly complex structures.

No... Behe tried to show irreducibly complex structures and failed. So far there aren't any. And you have yet to show a "theory of intelligent design" or any evidence for such a thing. You haven't shown us what this "intelligent design" states, what it calls for or what it predicts. Basically, you just keep using those two words together as if it means something.

This is an outgrowth from the integrated complexity of living systems and a characteristic of design reaffirming the implementation of intelligence.

And at every turn creationists have been thwarted in their attempts to show design in living systems. The Kitzmiller trial was particularly damaging.

Secondarily, it is also evidence against Darwinism.

I know you like to say "Darwinism" but there isn't such a thing. Darwin wrote a couple of books that set us on this trail but much of his work has been eclipsed already. There isn't an 'ism' involved in accepting evolution.

Tests show that chance and necessity is inadequate when it comes to the assembly of living systems.

What tests? I'm going to insist that you show us these or stop lying about their existence.

The relegation of purely naturalistic processes as the factors responsible for the creation of living systems is a testament to the requirement of an intelligent force in the assembly of living systems providing evidence for intelligent design.

But we have found no evidence of any need for an intelligence. No evidence of any intelligence. No evidence of anything but natural processes at work. So what requirement of an intelligence are you referring to? Your desperate desire to find one? That's the only thing I can think of.

It also happens to be evidence against Darwinism. The limitations experienced in the adaptation of living systems shows that a mere continuance from a single organism is not enough and an independent outside force is required to build living systems.

You make these things up and profer them as if they are real. There is no need of an independent outside force and no evidence of one having acted at any point in the history of this planet. Unless you'd like to provide that evidence?

This also fits the prediction of intelligence and design. But it just so happens be evidence against Darwinism.

It would, if it existed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have any theological reason to believe that the KJV1611 is under "the umbrella of God's providence" (at least anymore so than any other version), or is it juts a matter of convenience that you believe so?

When one line of translations stands out head-and-shoulders above the others as far as wording is concerned, that's a good tip that the Arab phone didn't ring much.

If I told you I was in the construction business, and my trademark was blue houses, I'd say if you entered my neighborhood, you could spot my houses from those who build houses of various colors.

 

[AV1611VET]

So what did the translators use in the time of King James?

Without looking it up, I believe it was either the AV1568 Bishop's or the AV1534 Tyndale.